Wilson v. U.S., 1:13-CR-476-ODE-CMS (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20180307b39
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER ORINDA D. EVANS , District Judge . This criminal case is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas filed January 26, 2018 ("R&R") [Doc. 62]. No objections have been filed. 1 In the R&R, Judge Salinas recommends that Movant's 2255 motion, as supplemented, be dismissed and that a certificate of appealability ("COA") be denied. After a thorough analysis, Judge Salinas found: because Movant waived the opportunity to
Summary: ORDER ORINDA D. EVANS , District Judge . This criminal case is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas filed January 26, 2018 ("R&R") [Doc. 62]. No objections have been filed. 1 In the R&R, Judge Salinas recommends that Movant's 2255 motion, as supplemented, be dismissed and that a certificate of appealability ("COA") be denied. After a thorough analysis, Judge Salinas found: because Movant waived the opportunity to f..
More
ORDER
ORINDA D. EVANS, District Judge.
This criminal case is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas filed January 26, 2018 ("R&R") [Doc. 62]. No objections have been filed.1
In the R&R, Judge Salinas recommends that Movant's § 2255 motion, as supplemented, be dismissed and that a certificate of appealability ("COA") be denied. After a thorough analysis, Judge Salinas found: because Movant waived the opportunity to file a collateral attack or, in the alternative, because the three grounds for relief he has raised are meritless, he is not entitled to relief under § 2255. She also found that Movant does not meet the requisite standards for a COA.
The Court having read and considered the R&R and noting the absence of any objections, it is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion and order of the Court. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, Movant's § 2255 motion, as supplemented, is DISMISSED and a COA is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. On January 26, 2018, Mr. Wilson filed a "Motion for Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (4)" [Doc. 64]. Because that motion was filed the same day the Final R&R was issued, and because that motion does not address any issue discussed in the Final R&R, the Court does not construe it as Mr. Wilson's Objections to the Final R&R. Rather, the Court has considered Mr. Wilson's Rule 60(b) (4) motion on the terms in which he presented it. So considered, the Court notes that Mr. Wilson mistakenly claims that this Court "terminated" his [Section] 2255 motion and then demands that this Court "[v]oid the judgment in his [Section] 2255 case" [Doc. 64 at 2]. Because no such "termination" occurred, there is no "judgment" to vacate. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Wilson's Rule 60(b) (4) motion.
Source: Leagle
